July 19, 2012

Huge study on Y-chromosome variation in Iran (Grugni et al. 2012)

This is the equivalent of a box of candy for anyone interested in Eurasian (pre-)history. I will have digest all the goodies within, and post any of my comments as updates to this post.

UPDATE I: Here is the table of haplogroup frequencies for easy reference:

One of the most interesting finds is the presence of a few IJ-M429* chromosomes in the sample. Haplogroup IJ encompasses the major European I subclade, and the major West Asian J subclade. The discovery of IJ* chromosomes is consistent with the origin of this haplogroup in West Asia; it is widely believed that haplogroup I represents a pre-Neolithic lineage in Europe, although at present there are no Y chromosome-tested pre-Neolithic remains.

There is also a wide assortment of Q and R in Iran. While some of these may be intrusive (e.g., the 42.6% of Q1a2 in Turkmen, likely a legacy of their Central Asian origins), the overall picture appears consistent with a deep presence of these lineages in Iran. This is especially true for haplogroup R where pretty much every paragroup and derived group is present, excepting those likely to have originated recently elsewhere.

UPDATE II: From the paper:

Although accounting only for 25% of the total variance, the first two components (Figure 3) separate populations according to their geographic and ethnic origin and define five main clusters: East-African, North-African and Near Eastern Arab, European, Near Eastern and South Asian. The 1stPC clearly distinguishes the East African groups (showing a high frequency of haplogroup E) from all the others which distribute longitudinally along the axis with a wide overlapping between European and Arab peoples and between Near Eastern and South Asian groups. The 2ndPC separates the North-African and Near Eastern Arabs (characterized by the highest frequency of haplogroup J1) from Europeans (characterized by haplogroups I, R1a and R1b) and the Near Easterners from the South Asians (due to the distribution of haplogroups G, R2 and L). Iranian groups do not cluster all together, occupying intermediate positions among Arab, Near Eastern and Asian clusters. In this scenario, it is worth of noticing the position of three Iranian groups: (i) Khuzestan Arabs (KHU-Ar) who, despite their Arabic origin, are close to the Iranian samples; (ii) Armenians from Tehran (THE-Ar), whose position, in the upper part of the Iranian distribution, indicates a close affinity with the Near Eastern cluster, while their position near Turkey and Caucasus groups, due to the high frequency R1b-M269 and other European markers (eg: I-M170), is in agreement with their Armenia origin; (iii) Sistan Baluchestan (SB-Ba) that clusters with its neighbouring Pakistan.

UPDATE III: There are lots of little details in the haplogroup distribution that make historical sense. For example, C3 exists in Assyrians from Azarbaijan, and both C*, C3, and O exists in Zoroastrians from Yazd. It is often forgotten that before the spread of Islam, and quite time thereafter, Inner Asia was teeming with Zoroastrians and Nestorian Christians. It seems quite likely that these outliers represent a legacy of these communities.

UPDATE IV: I have a feeling that Razib will take exception with this statement: "Ancient Persian people were firstly characterized by the Zoroastrianism. After the Islamization, Shi'a became the main doctrine of all Iranian people."

UPDATE V: This confirms my observation from the recentstudies in Afghanistan, that there is an inverse relationship of J2a and R1a in Iranian-speaking groups, with an excess of the latter among the eastern Iranians, and of the former among the Persians. From the paper:

Among the different J2a haplogroups, J2a-M530 [46] is the most informative as for ancient dispersal events from the Iranian region. This lineage probably originated in Iran where it displays its highest frequency and variance in Yazd and Mazandaran (Figure 2). Taking into account its microsatellite variation and age estimates along its distribution area (Tables S3 and S7), it is likely that its diffusion could have been triggered by the Euroasiatic climatic amelioration after the Last Glacial Maximum and later increased by agriculture spread from Turkey and Caucasus towards southern Europe. The high variance observed in the Italian Peninsula is probably the result of stratifications of subsequent migrations and/or of the presence of sub-lineages not yet identified. Of interest in the M530 network (Figures 2 and S3) is the presence of a lateral branch that is characterized by a DYS391 repeat number equal to 9. Differently from previous observations [46], this branch is not restricted to Anatolian Greek samples being shared with different eastern Mediterranean coastal populations. The M530 diffusion pattern seems to be also shared by the paragroups J2a-M410* and J2a-PAGE55*. In addition, the variance distribution of the rare R1b-M269* Y chromosomes, displaying decreasing values from Iran, Anatolia and the western Black Sea coastal region, is also suggestive of a westward diffusion from the Iranian plateau, although more complex scenarios can be still envisioned because of its non-star like structure.

Of course, the idea that the diffusion of J2a related lineages ties in with early agricultural expansions has been with us for a long time, but it is time to abandon it. First of all, as we have seen, J2a diminishes greatly as we head towards South Asia; it certainly doesn't look like the lineage of the multitude of agricultural settlements that sprang up along the southeastern vector soon after the invention of agriculture. Second, it is lacking so far in all ancient Y chromosome data from Europe down to 5,000 years ago. It seems much more probably that J2 related lineages spread from the highlands of West Asia much later.

The "age estimates" are the result of using the inappropriate "evolutionary mutation rate", and become even older because of the inclusion of the DYS388 marker that is very stable in many haplogroups but very mutable within haplogroup J. On the left you can see frequency, Y-STR variance, and haplotype network structures for various J-related groups.

It is unfortunate that there is no progress in the phylogeographic assessment of R1a in this paper. There have been substantial discoveries of SNPs within this haplogroup as a result of commercial testing; however there is clearly an ascertainment bias in the newer discoveries, as almost all these SNPs have been detected in Europeans. The new paper confirms the high levels of Y-STR variance in India, Pakistan, and Iran. Together with the cornucopia of related paragroups in Iran, there is little doubt that this haplogroup originated in the general area of Central/South Asia.

Personally, as I have stated before, I would relate this R1a with Neolithic peoples living east of the Caspian, in contrast to the R1b bearers who lived west and south of it. These two populations came under the influence of the Indo-Europeans and spread in different directions. The Indo-Iranians were then initially the mixed descendants of the Indo-Europeans and the R1a old agricultural population, and were formed in the territory of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

This also explains the contrast between Iranian and Armenian groups: the latter mostly lack the R1a lineage, contrasting with all Iranian groups (even their Kurdish neighbors) who possess it. Conversely, Iranian groups, and especially eastern Iranians and Indo-Ayrans lack the R1b lineage. This is due to the fact that neither R1a nor R1b were originally part of the Indo-European community, but their geographical position was such that they came under the influence of the Indo-Europeans when the latter began their expansion.

UPDATE VI: I have created my own dendrogram using the Y-haplogroup frequencies and the hclust package of R (default parameters):

From top to bottom, one can identify some clusters:

Eastern Europe, further broken down into Balkans and Slavic+Hungary

West Asian/Caucasus

Iranian Proper

Arab

These correspond largely to the clusters identified by the authors, with India and the Turkmen sample emerging as the clear outliers. I omitted the Ethiopian samples, since E-M78 was not resolved phylogenetically, causing the Ethiopians to group with the likely E-V13 from the Balkans.

UPDATE VII: I have also run MCLUST over the haplogroup frequency data over the MDS representation of the distance matrix. The maximum number of 10 clusters occurred with 5 MDS dimensions retained. Population assignments in the 10 clusters can be found in the table below:

Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians

Viola Grugni et al.

Knowledge of high resolution Y-chromosome haplogroup diversification within Iran provides important geographic context regarding the spread and compartmentalization of male lineages in the Middle East and southwestern Asia. At present, the Iranian population is characterized by an extraordinary mix of different ethnic groups speaking a variety of Indo-Iranian, Semitic and Turkic languages. Despite these features, only few studies have investigated the multiethnic components of the Iranian gene pool. In this survey 938 Iranian male DNAs belonging to 15 ethnic groups from 14 Iranian provinces were analyzed for 84 Y-chromosome biallelic markers and 10 STRs. The results show an autochthonous but non-homogeneous ancient background mainly composed by J2a sub-clades with different external contributions. The phylogeography of the main haplogroups allowed identifying post-glacial and Neolithic expansions toward western Eurasia but also recent movements towards the Iranian region from western Eurasia (R1b-L23), Central Asia (Q-M25), Asia Minor (J2a-M92) and southern Mesopotamia (J1-Page08). In spite of the presence of important geographic barriers (Zagros and Alborz mountain ranges, and the Dasht-e Kavir and Dash-e Lut deserts) which may have limited gene flow, AMOVA analysis revealed that language, in addition to geography, has played an important role in shaping the nowadays Iranian gene pool. Overall, this study provides a portrait of the Y-chromosomal variation in Iran, useful for depicting a more comprehensive history of the peoples of this area as well as for reconstructing ancient migration routes. In addition, our results evidence the important role of the Iranian plateau as source and recipient of gene flow between culturally and genetically distinct populations.

57 comments:

Not surprising at all though my interest is mainly with the R and J2 family.Its again clear as R2 M479 and R2* is 0 there and the fact that R2* is found in the subcontinent (pakistan) and R2 is not M124 But R2a which is most frequent in India with the overall moderate frequency~15% of M198 compared to India ~50% atleast, the origin of R2a and R1a1 is surely around SC Asia.

That's the best paper in the last five years analyzing modern Y-DNA haplotypes from a core region. As a specialist in the J1 haplogroup I had observed before the importance of Northern Iran as a source of basal types like J1b M365 and a separation of J1 SNPs and haplotypes between the Ancient Iranian populations and the Arab Semitic Southern J1c3d types. Unfortunately the authors were ignorant in relation to J1b M365 but the general framework of the study can clearly point to the originality of Northern Iran as a source from some of the oldest basal haplogroups related to the peopling of Europe. Probably the Iranian Plateau was among the first recipients of some of the first movements of the survivors of the Last Glacial Maximum and the subsequent intense desertification of some Southern areas.

Iran has been one of the biggest gaps in our population genetic knowledge despite its crucial central location, and given its complexity and subgroup diversity, it is just as well that it comes in one huge dump like this rather than by dribbles that would be improperly extrapolated to the entire country on the grounds that it was the best available evidence.

I am quite skeptical of the notion that PIE did not have either R1a or R1b as Dienekes speculates near the end of the post, however.

All or very nearly all of the ancient DNA from the eastern side of the modern R1a v. R1b divide in Europe in populations associated archaeologically with likely IE speakers going all of the way back to 2000 BCE or so are entirely, or nearly entirely, R1a from Ukraine to the Tarim Basin. Diversity of West Eurasian Y-DNA hgs in IE affiliated populations in found only in more recent ancient DNA and modern IE speaking populations,

This mirrors the results in ancient mtDNA where mtDNA hg T is the only new hg seen when the substrate of Uralic hunter-gatherers in Central Asia become IE (at a time when those populations were predominantly R1a in Y-DNA), followed by wider mtDNA diversity only in the Iron Age in Iranian Scythian populations.

There is simply no other Y-DNA hg that has a greater probability of being part of an IE population.

FWIW, I think on balance that it is most likely that PIE was probably predominantly R1a and that R1b became IE only due to language shift under IE expansion influence, possibly sometime after R1b dispersal in Westernish Europe. Y-DNA haplogroup diversity in IE populations probably doesn't arise until populations with other origins from places like Iran and Anatolia are integrated into the mix sometime after 2000 BCE and then included in subsequent IE expansions.

All or very nearly all of the ancient DNA from the eastern side of the modern R1a v. R1b divide in Europe in populations associated archaeologically with likely IE speakers going all of the way back to 2000 BCE or so are entirely, or nearly entirely, R1a from Ukraine to the Tarim Basin.

There are no ancient Y-DNA data from Ukraine.

Also, there is really no reason to speak of the territory from Ukraine to the Tarim as "likely IE" at 2,000BC, when the first know IE language appears in the Eurasian steppe a thousand years later, in the form of Scythians, and three thousand years later in the case of the Tarim basin.

"All or very nearly all of the ancient DNA from the eastern side of the modern R1a v. R1b divide in Europe in populations associated archaeologically with likely IE speakers going all of the way back to 2000 BCE or so are entirely, or nearly entirely, R1a from Ukraine to the Tarim Basin. Diversity of West Eurasian Y-DNA hgs in IE affiliated populations in found only in more recent ancient DNA and modern IE speaking populations,"

Dude, clearly j2 men spread IE to India and T women brought IE to the steps and Central Asia. Then, at some point, for some reason, r1a men migrated to India.

"possibly sometime after R1b dispersal in Westernish Europe."

I think there's a very good case for m269 entering western Europe from the steps, close to r1a. So, whether acculturated or not, I think the steps are a pretty solid explanation.

Great paper. My own pet theory is that there were two expansions of both R1b and R1a, before and after Indo-Europeanization:

The first “Mediterranean”, non-IE-influenced expansion of R1b gave origin to Vasconcic-Iberian languages and whatever was spoken in Sardinia prior to the Romans (Sardinia has unusual R1b diversity); the second, “Balkanic” IE-influenced expansion of R1b gave origin to Centum IE and Anatolian.

The first non-IE influenced expansion of R1a gave origin to Kassite/Gutian and maybe Burushaski; the Stay-at-home R1a gave origin to North(west/east?) Caucasian and Hurro-Urartian. The IE-influenced expansion gave origin to Satem IE.

The uncertainty here is the position of the Tocharians and the Tarim R1as / R1b 's.

The last thing i will want to hear is that J2 spread I.E. To India:-D, Dear princen, the frequency of J2 is almost sunya (0) among Brahmins like in Uttar Pradesh brahmins, Bengali brahmins and Konkanastha brahmins etc. and somehow appears on some khatriyas and others and non i.e. Speakers like Lodhas have the highest of J2 frequency 32%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia#Haplogroup_J2Yes R1a1a is connected to I.E.L. but all Indians have only the Z93 branch of M17/M198 which again is most frequent there and not to forget the very high STR variance also.Have a good time.

"Nothing can "correlate" with IE in Europe because Europe is almost completely Indo-European."

You know that's not true. You have recently argued that 'West Asian" was associated with the spread of IE to Europe. You then explained the low level of "West Asian" in Iberia and it's complete absence in Sardinia by you're version of IE history.

In other words, you admit that there should be varying degrees of IE influence in Europe, based on the IE history.

As Andrew says,

"All or very nearly all of the ancient DNA from the eastern side of the modern R1a v. R1b divide in Europe in populations associated archaeologically with likely IE speakers going all of the way back to 2000 BCE or so are entirely, or nearly entirely, R1a from Ukraine to the Tarim Basin. Diversity of West Eurasian Y-DNA hgs in IE affiliated populations in found only in more recent ancient DNA and modern IE speaking populations"

I would add R1b and we basically see that the migrations, north of the middle east, associated with the spread of IE correlate well with R1b and R1a. J2, on the other hand, does not.

You know that's not true. You have recently argued that 'West Asian" was associated with the spread of IE to Europe. You then explained the low level of "West Asian" in Iberia and it's complete absence in Sardinia by you're version of IE history.

West_Asian appears at the right time and has minima in the right groups. This is not the case for any Y-chromosome haplogroups.

I would add R1b and we basically see that the migrations, north of the middle east, associated with the spread of IE correlate well with R1b and R1a. J2, on the other hand, does not.

Lol, how do they "correlate"? J2 is the modal haplogroup in a bunch of IE groups, R1b in another bunch, and R1a in yet another bunch.

There are, however, strong hints: J2 expanded late, it seems, its J2a subclade is associated with Hindu upper castes, its center of weight is in the IE homeland, it largely overlaps with the area of maximum West_Asian, and it also reaches all major branches of IE, even in small frequencies.

R1b is definitely "out" as a PIE candidate due to its clear asymmetrical geographical distribution; it can only be associated with some secondary Indo-Europeanized groups.

There is no compelling reason, I think, to believe that a haplogroup originally associated with a language/language family should be abundantly present everywhere the language is spoken –or present at all, for that matter.

It could have been carried far and wide by neighboring acculturated populations - and, by the way, the sub-populations living at the edge or that joined late in the expansion need have had scarcely any contact with the original speakers, hence, yes!, 0% .

There are many such cases of acculturated populations carrying host languages to distant places in recent history: Nheengatu, Yidish and other Jewish languages, in some areas Mapuche, Quechua and Arabic, etc., and that not to mention Creoles. Maybe even the cases of Turkish and Hungarian could fit here.

So we should not confuse haplogroups that are associated with the spread of languages with haplogroups associated with the populations that originally spoke them. In some cases, there might not be any obvious correlation at all.

So, for all we know, and in the absence of further evidence, PIE might as well have been ORIGINALLY spoken by populations dominated by "I" or "J" or "G" - or any other hg around the presumed homelands. Now, Who spread them is another story.

I always had some problem with the West Asian admixture component, because virtually every prehistoric immigration into Europe originated from its "home" areas. Something this broad and general can't be really informative.

The higher resolution admixture components are of course not just parts of the lower resolution admixture components, but even you suggested earlier that West Asian is roughly Caucasus and Gedrosia in the K12. I just studied the K12a spreadsheet of the Dodekade project a few days ago and it has some warning messages. 1. (On that spreadsheet) Gedrosia and Caucasus components are not correlated in Europe at all. This makes clear that their sources are different (at least two migrations). 2. The geographical dispersion of the Gedrosia component (modal on the British Isles and the directly connecting coastal area, and low everywhere in the east, included even the Balkan) makes very unlikely any connection between this component and IE immigration. 3. Caucasus component has a south (southeast) to north cline and hardly any other clear pattern. Its high presence in Sardinia suggests that the SE European Caucasus modality also predates IE. Unlike Gedrosia this component still can be brought by IE too, but not only by them and it is very difficult to identify what part is from IE migration and what is not.

So West Asian is too broad, it was probably carried by all of the Neolithic migrants whether IE or not IE and from its “subgroups” Gedrosia is clearly not IE (can be a problem for the BMAC source into the steppe theory, but the population of that area could have changed a lot since then), while Caucasus is still brought by multiple migrations, so the exact identification what is from IE is rather difficult.

As for Y-haplogroups, with the currents data one needs a lot of imagination to connect R1b as whole to IE. Maybe partially, some of the subgroups have IE origin.

1. (On that spreadsheet) Gedrosia and Caucasus components are not correlated in Europe at all. This makes clear that their sources are different (at least two migrations).

Yes, that is likely, of course I don't believe there was a _single_ IE invasion of Europe anymore than there was a single European invasion of the Americas. There were different streams, and the one thing they had in common was the West_Asian component, because they all ultimately derived (through various admixtures, some in Asia, others in Europe) from the same original population.

2. The geographical dispersion of the Gedrosia component (modal on the British Isles and the directly connecting coastal area, and low everywhere in the east, included even the Balkan) makes very unlikely any connection between this component and IE immigration.

See above.

3. Caucasus component has a south (southeast) to north cline and hardly any other clear pattern. Its high presence in Sardinia suggests that the SE European Caucasus modality also predates IE. Unlike Gedrosia this component still can be brought by IE too, but not only by them and it is very difficult to identify what part is from IE migration and what is not.

The "Caucasus" component combines the West_Asian and the Southern. Its presence in Sardinia is due to the Southern, not the West_Asian. Sardinians have some Caucasus (related to the Southern that exists in the Caucasus) but no West_Asian.

So West Asian is too broad, it was probably carried by all of the Neolithic migrants whether IE or not IE and from its “subgroups”

If it was carried by all Neolithic migrants, there's no evidence of it in Europe up to 5ka.

But, of course, I do believe that it's not exclusively IE. As I've explained before, the fact that e.g., Englishmen brought North_European to North America doesn't mean that only Englishmen did so or that only Englishmen had it back in Europe.

The Proto-Indo-Europeans were one of several groups of the prehistoric Near East, they and their neighbors had West_Asian, and they spread it into Europe late in prehistory.

FWIW, I think on balance that it is most likely that PIE was probably predominantly R1a and that R1b became IE only due to language shift under IE expansion influence, possibly sometime after R1b dispersal in Westernish Europe. Y-DNA haplogroup diversity in IE populations probably doesn't arise until populations with other origins from places like Iran and Anatolia are integrated into the mix sometime after 2000 BCE and then included in subsequent IE expansions.

andrew,

My problem with this and with some of Dienekes' thinking is that this is all too terribly late, for Central and Northern Europe. Most specialists agree that Proto-Germanic arose in Northern and Central-to-Eastern Germany and current Western Poland (forget about silly Scandinavian origins that were abolished half a century ago except in the Anglo-American literature - there is a complete lack of any evidence of N --> S cultural impact, but plenty vice versa).

And many agree this plus separation into Proto-Celtic and Proto-Italic happened either during or before the northern Urnfield / Tumulus in a region with clear archeological continuity(*) since at least the early bronze age or before. Cynics will say, yeah, that's why y-DNA haplogroup I survived, there. Others think that PIE spread much further much earlier, which then much later enabled groups to establish their IE language locally, much more easily.

That is, Celtic, Germanic, and Italic may have started separation and full establishment on a fertile PIE background, and separated locally as early as 2000 - 1500 BCE - way before any of the often-cited late intrusion from the East.

(*) Unlike popular "constant-latitude-exchange" theories, Europe's climate is very different, between the West and the East. In the West and part of the Western Center, you can go 800-1,000 km N/S without much climatic change. Do the same W/E, and you go from a moderate, Atlantic Climate in the North to one 15-20C colder in the winter, with much longer winters, and more snowfalls. Or go from a mild Adriatic to an unbearable summer inland SE Hungary to a frigid winter NE Romania, a mildish Black Sea, and a truly mild Crimean - all the same latitude.

For the most part, the East is much more continental and much more prone to severe and catastrophic climate changes (droughts and very long, cold winters) - which means inability to cut enough hay and get sufficient food for animals and people, while you need more animal labor to collect it, food for many more days before they can go outside, and collection on more days than remain available. It's a vicious cycle.

So, population density in the East was fluctuating extremely before the advent of mechanized harvesting. But not in the more western parts of Central Europe, or in Western Europe. This makes for a huge difference in population continuity. Some regions indeed were susceptible to huge population turn-around, others were not. We should keep this straight.

Germanic isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE. Not so older dates are perfectly possible, indeed likely, for Italic an Celtic.

In terms of linguistic data alone, there is no need whatsoever to push the separation dates further back in time.

As for Tumulus, what language they spoke is just speculation. The IEs could simply have set the stage for the changes that led to Urnfield while otherwise mingling with the local culture, and the chronology would fit.

Germanic isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE

Ezr,

You need to distinguish between what seems apparent today, and what was in existence 2,000 or more years ago. Compared to Slavic, for example, even German - let alone Germanic - is truly ancient.

For example, ~2,000 years ago, Eastern Germanic was completely unintelligible to most other Germanic. So was Norwegian, and later Icelandic. So where NW German (not Germanic!) "dialects" to SE ones 1,500 years ago.

There where several processes that brought together highly divergent Scandinavian languages in the past 1,500 years, and Swedish and German and English and German in the same time period. Linguistics shows they were actually farther apart before then.

There is no reason to think this was ever any different. This same process likely has been going on for more than 4,000 years. Northern/Central Germany, nowadays (Western) Poland, and Scandinavia have been in a tight Sprachbund for a very, very long time.

Germanic isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE.

Also, just to prove the point this is not a useful argument, at all, let's state it slightly differently:

Greek isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE.Albanian isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE.Armenian isn't very internally diverse, it must have split only a few centuries BCE.

"Lol, how do they "correlate"? J2 is the modal haplogroup in a bunch of IE groups, R1b in another bunch, and R1a in yet another bunch."

Because they appear in the adna of cultures likely to have introduced IE to regions north of the Middle East (Beaker and Andronovo). They also seemed to spread at the right time.

Notice that j2 has not been found in any of the above (IE?) cultures.

Archeology also suggests that Central Europe had a larger influx of IE than Southern Europe, with the former being mostly R1b and R1a and the later having much more J2. (Ill have to do some more digging on this).

And more broadly, R1b and R1a are found throughout the IE world and mostly restricted to it. The same isn't true for j2. In fact pair j2 with any contender hg and you would still get a worse match.

"its center of weight is in the IE homeland"

The center of weight is in Iraq, south of most pie theories.

"West_Asian appears at the right time and has minima in the right groups. This is not the case for any Y-chromosome haplogroups."

It has the wrong minima (Sardinia) and the wrong maxima (Caucasus). However, I think its best to look at the overall correlation rather than picking a few comparisons. Just as "West Asian" peaks in the Caucasus, r1b has a peak in the basque, but neither case eliminates an IE connection. So let's look at the larger correlations unless we know a lot about a small subset.

Focusing on the "West Asian" component we see that it's mostly found in southeast Europe and only lightly found in Central and eastern Europe. We also see that it is stronger in Finland than Iberia. Maybe "West Asian" is more the result of diffusion, separate from IE.

More importantly, in your k7 (not b), "Caucasus" is stronger in Finland than Iberia and Lithuania! I would guess that its often useless to scrutinize a small component seeing how a trivial tweak produces a new pattern.

Lastly, in k12b, non-IE_Otzi has "Caucasus". I know you like to say that "Caucasus" is made up of multiple components from k7b, which you use to disregard otzi's affinity towards the rest of Europe's "Caucasus", but how do you know which one is real?!? Why can't we just reverse the equation and say that "West Asian" is made up of multiple components and is actually artificial?

Having said that, let's just pretend we actually did know that "West Asian" represents a new population to Europe. We are still left with the fact that the greatest component shift during bronze age Europe was "North European", in the positive direction. So the main marker of IE in Europe was "North European", very consistent with steppe theory.

I believe you misunderstood what I meant by split. I was talking about internal split, not a split from PIE. And the argument stands even taking Gothic into account.

Most linguists agree that Proto-Germanic split (internally) just a few centuries BCE, say 400, 500 BCE. That's the specialists' opinion (not mine) based on data including Gothic and Proto-Norse. What you seem to be proposing is that this Proto-Germanic spoken in 500/400 BCE had been diverging from other branches of IE for maybe more than two millenia.

I think there is no compelling evidence for that. We don't need that to explain either the differences of Germanic from PIE, or spread of Germanic in northern Europe and, if we don't need it, Occam's Razor applies.

Likewise, there is no compelling evidence to maintain that the separation of the western branches of IE must be so old. Let's say I agree with you that it is possible, given certain sociolinguistic assumptions (but these assumptions relating language shift to certain cultural horizons need extra evidence – again, Occam's Razor).

But it doesn't have to be so, because the available linguistic evidence, as you yourself seem to admit, does not currently require it. The rest are just assumptions and speculation. The Tumulus people (and the Urnfield for that matter) may have spoken any language. Many such connections between languages and cultural traditions without written records are iffy speculation and shouldn't be given that much weight in isolation. There is nothing that requires us to go from 400 BCE Proto-Germanic to an already divergent proto-Germanickish in 2400 BCE.

Hm.When it comes to the "diversity" in German, then there was an EXTREME drop in diversity after 1945 to today.

Before world war 2, Germans usualy spoke dialect in every day life and used the common German only if reading books and newspapers.

The diversity of these local dialects is that huge, that in my home region (near Dutch border. terretory of the celtish "Belgae" before they had been pushed westward by Germanics. Inhabitated by "Brukturii" in the 1th century, who are rated "Proto-Frankish". Then part of the Saxon terretory before Charlemagnes conquest of the Saxons) there are 5 different versions of one word in less then 30km around my birth town. Each version is only used localy, so that its possible to pinpoint someone to one of these towns, if he uses this version of the word.

I recall a TV show, where an expert on German dialects made people on the phone say a few sentences in their local dialect and finaly told them not only the region but the exact village they are calling from.

Well, I know that my grandparents talked in dialect to each others and they talked in dialect if they met other, same aged people on the street and I couldnt understand anything. It was a complete mystery to me, why they did behave like this. lol

Meanwhile, most German dialects made it on the list of "endangered languages". The dialects virtually went extinct in 3 generations.

"Experts" in articles about it, claim that one of the main reasons had been the displacement of Germans after the war. Suposedly 1 out of 3 Germans moved to a region with a totaly different branch of the German dialects, so that he couldnt underdtand a word of the local language.

That led to the problem, that you hadnt been able to use dialect with your co-workers anymore but you had been forced to use "common" at work.

Also, the new kids in school, from different parts of the country wouldnt understand the local dialect, so the kids started to talk in common aswell.

The drop was extremely quick. If the grandparents allmost exclusively talked in dialect, then their kids had been able to understand it well, but they hadnt been able to talk it themselfs, or they got rolling eyes from their parents from raping their language. And the kids of these kids (my generation) is not able to even understand dialect. Well ok, sometimes dialect apears to be more close to English than the common German and by knowing English, you can guess what this dialect word means...

Example of the dialect in my region:

"He was gudd ant Wärk"Wich actually means... err.. "he was good at work" or "He worked fine" or so.

But also this, wich I wouldnt understand at all:"Et lött vandaage gudd daale" = "Its raining a lot today!". Well actually its "It lets today good down" word by word.

Because they appear in the adna of cultures likely to have introduced IE to regions north of the Middle East (Beaker and Andronovo). They also seemed to spread at the right time.

Beaker introduced IE to the Middle East? What dope are you smoking? Beaker is a European culture. Nor is there any link between Andronovo and the Near East. Actually, the influence probably goes the other way, since both R-M17 and T entered the steppe rather than came out of it, and there is a single origin of metallurgy in Eurasia, and it's not on the steppe, but -you guessed it- in West Asia.

Actually, we don't know whether either Beaker or Andronovo were IE, let alone that they "introduced" Indo-European to the northern Middle East. And, it ought to be fairly clear by now that both R-M269 and R-M17 are not of European origin and cannot be considered to be invaders in West Asia from anywhere else.

And more broadly, R1b and R1a are found throughout the IE world and mostly restricted to it. The same isn't true for j2. In fact pair j2 with any contender hg and you would still get a worse match.

Right, cause we all know that Turks, Africans, Basques, and North Caucasians are Indo-European.

Bottom line is that J2 is highly represented in all the areas where the most basal splits of PIE occurred: Anatolia, Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and even the Tarim.

Its minima are in the periphery of the Indo-European expansion (northern and western Europe and South Asia), where there is probably little actual PIE ancestry. Luckily, thanks to the Indian caste system, the J2a that is there became rather preserved in the upper castes that are more likely to preserve a stronger signal of the original Indo-Aryans.

Lastly, in k12b, non-IE_Otzi has "Caucasus". I know you like to say that "Caucasus" is made up of multiple components from k7b, which you use to disregard otzi's affinity towards the rest of Europe's "Caucasus", but how do you know which one is real?!? Why can't we just reverse the equation and say that "West Asian" is made up of multiple components and is actually artificial?

The West_Asian is more "real" because it is bimodal in two population groups that are separated by about 2.5Mm of harsh terrain. For the same reason, the Southern one is more "real" because it is bimodal in Sardinians and Basques. Similarly, Northwest African is less real than Southern+African. The higher-resolution components are more likely to be real in terms of localized phenomena, the lower-resolution components are more likely to be real in terms of deep foci of common ancestry.

Having said that, let's just pretend we actually did know that "West Asian" represents a new population to Europe. We are still left with the fact that the greatest component shift during bronze age Europe was "North European", in the positive direction. So the main marker of IE in Europe was "North European", very consistent with steppe theory.

North European reflects the aboriginal, pre-IE hunter-gatherers of Europe. During the late Neolithic (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/03/neolithic-expansions-how-european.html) it appears that farmers and hunter-gatherers finally amalgamated.

The physical anthropology is also wrong. The Corded Ware culture of Central Europe cannot be derived from the broad-faced types that dominated the steppe. If there were massive invasions from the steppe (which are not attested either archaeologically or anthropologically) then we'd see a reinvigoration of the massive robust types that typify early European steppe populations.

Finally, a steppe-to-Europe theory fails to account for the West_Asian component.

Your theory is frankly bizarre, because it requires the extinction of the North_European Mesolithic substratum in Europe, and would have it be replenished by unattested massive migrations of North_European type people from the east who -by the way- would also have to make a southern detour to account for the West_Asian/Near_East segments that they brought into Europe.

No, that's not what I meant. I was talking about what spread IE to the regions north of the middle east, such as western Europe and central Asia. It's seems to have been r1b and r1a, and a notable absence of j2.

"Right, cause we all know that Turks, Africans, Basques, and North Caucasians are Indo-European."

Again with the individual comparisons? It's not supposed to be a perfect correlation, but it does appear to correlate with IE better than J2.

"Bottom line is that J2 is highly represented in all the areas where the most basal splits of PIE occurred: Anatolia, Graeco-Armeno-Aryan, and even the Tarim."

We don't know where they occured but ill admit this looks like a decent point.

"Its minima are in the periphery of the Indo-European expansion (northern and western Europe and South Asia)"

It looks like the periphery of Europe (from a given vantage point)! Finland has more "West Asian" than Iberia and Sardinia...

And remember, we are dealing with too small a component to make nuanced observations. In your k7 analysis Finland is more "Caucasus" than Iberia, Sardinia, and Lithuania. That does not fit with your IE theory at all.

Overall I don't think "West Asian" resembles an IE spread unless you can show that southern/southeastern Europe has more IE influence than central/eastern Europe.

"The West_Asian is more "real" because it is bimodal in two population groups that are separated by about 2.5Mm of harsh terrain."

Sorry, but I don't follow you here.

"Finally, a steppe-to-Europe theory fails to account for the West_Asian component."

That's assuming "West Asian" is real and that it could only get to the steppes by IE.

"Your theory is frankly bizarre, because it requires the extinction of the North_European Mesolithic substratum in Europe, and would have it be replenished by unattested massive migrations of North_European type"

We did see a neolithic replacement in much of Europe, which does not include the steps. After the neolithic, in the metal ages, we see a large shift in ydna and mtdna, with the latter being connected to meso Europeans. The end result is European population that is much more meso than the neolithic inhabitants. So the replacement theory does seem to fit the data well. Id say better than hidden groups of meso-like Europeans throught Europe during the neolithic.

No, that's not what I meant. I was talking about what spread IE to the regions north of the middle east, such as western Europe and central Asia. It's seems to have been r1b and r1a, and a notable absence of j2.

No, it does not. There is plenty of J2 in Central Asia and plenty of J2 in Europe. While I do think that Indo-Europeanized R1a groups, and perhaps even R1b groups may have spread IE languages in the periphery, your argument really makes no sense.

Again with the individual comparisons? It's not supposed to be a perfect correlation, but it does appear to correlate with IE better than J2.

It is you who claimed that "R1b and R1a are found throughout the IE world and mostly restricted to it. The same isn't true for j2." Your contention is wrong, as I have shown.

It looks like the periphery of Europe (from a given vantage point)! Finland has more "West Asian" than Iberia and Sardinia...

That is the wrong comparison. It has less West_Asian than all its IE neighbors

We just found out that the U5 in most modern Europeans did not decend from the autochthonous mesolithic populations, even though the study you link would assume continuity.

What killed the autochthonous mesolithic populations? The farmers tended to avoid them as both archaeology and DNA seems to indicate.

If you can find a reasonable explanation for what killed them off, I'll consider your "replenished from the steppe" idea, but I doubt that you can.

And, also the "replenished from the steppe" idea is wrong because as I won't tire of repeating, there is no anthropological/archaeological evidence for population replacement at that time in Europe. Even arch-supporters of the steppe IE hypothesis like JP Mallory and D. Anthony explicitly reject population replacement.

Most linguists agree that Proto-Germanic split (internally) just a few centuries BCE, say 400, 500 BCE. That's the specialists' opinion (not mine) based on data including Gothic and Proto-Norse. What you seem to be proposing is that this Proto-Germanic spoken in 500/400 BCE had been diverging from other branches of IE for maybe more than two millenia.

Ezr,I disagree with your "most" above, especially if you consider contemporary continental European researchers. Think about what has been documented in the past 2,000 years, or so: a strong regional Sprachbund. Looking back into the past, if this also occurred previously (and there is no reason to assume otherwise), Germanic languages at times were much wider apart then they appear in your back view mirror, now.

If you prefer the expression "pre" rather than "proto", many linguist agree that the split between pre-Celtic, pre-Italic, and pre-Germanic occurred latest between 4,000 and 3,500 years ago, concurrent with demonstrated regional archaeological continuities of the early bronze age. BTW, some mathematical models have the split 5,000 to 6,000 ya, but fail to explain why nothing happened to the branches for 1,000 - 2,000 years.

Also, the new kids in school, from different parts of the country wouldnt understand the local dialect, so the kids started to talk in common aswell.

Fanty,

I completely agree - many outsiders simply so not understand the severity of German "dialect" differences, whether 200 years ago or 2,000 years ago. Even 400 years after the invention of printing, a common bible, and re-shuffling of university-educated priests and teachers all across Germany, there were at least 5-6 completely mutually-unintelligible dialects (or should we say languages?) in Germany. We all know the situation was even more diverse, before all those societal strategies to unify the language.

"Finally, a steppe-to-Europe theory fails to account for the West_Asian component."

Not necessarily. Not if the Tripolye-cucuteni had a big percentage of this west Asian component, as they were both quite numerous and in the middle of way to rest of Europe. The indo-europeanization of that region (*) bordering the steppes would be the reason for it.

(*) After all, what we see following this time are cultures with more things in common with the steppic cultures, about everywhere, not with the Cucuteni ones.

Actually, during the time of Yamna - surmised moment of the PIE and dispersal of the IE community in the Kurgan hypothesis - the west Yamna (logically, mostly the source of the populations that would be at the source of the process of Indo-europeanization of Europe (e.g. the movements from west Yamna to the Danube valley and the vicinity of Hungary (roughly around 3000 BCE), is seen by some as the source for the - hypotetical - italo-celtic branch)) was an admixed population steppes/Cucuteni and were already carriers of a west asian component themselves (This alone, could even easily explain some west Asian loanwords in PIE).

Through the time, populations with always less of the genes of the ancestral PIE populations (especially if we assume the PIE were a little minority basically everywhere, at the beginning of the process) would still spread a sizable west asian component everywhere.

So we can imagine that indo-europeanized populations spreaded the west Asian component, not really PIE populations, per se.

"thanks to the Indian caste system, the J2a that is there became rather preserved in the upper castes that are more likely to preserve a stronger signal of the original Indo-Aryans"

Or it represents partially (**) an image of the population that started the process of indo-aryanisation of India, itself an already indo-aryanized population (and thus admixed). Besides it works better with the tracks of Indic (or something close enough) found in languages of, for instance, the EAST of the Ural mountains (like in Hungarian, that came from there), where we don't find Y-DNA J2 anywhere close.

(**) I remember reading that the caste system was much less rigid at the beginning, it was easier to go up... or down.

Not necessarily. Not if the Tripolye-cucuteni had a big percentage of this west Asian component, as they were both quite numerous and in the middle of way to rest of Europe. The indo-europeanization of that region (*) bordering the steppes would be the reason for it.

Tripolye-Cucuteni is more likely to have been IE than the regions to the east of it. And, it's pointless to speculate on what "might" turn up.

But, I'll disregard both of the above points. The West_Asian is not limited to Europe, but also occurs in Siberia and Central Asia. So, if Yamna groups got some of it passing through the Balkans, where did they get it going from Eastern Europe to Siberia?

The simplest explanation is not that mobile steppe groups engaged in geographical gymnastics, but that steppe populations were affected by West Asia.

"Besides it works better with the tracks of Indic (or something close enough) found in languages of, for instance, the EAST of the Ural mountains (like in Hungarian, that came from there), where we don't find Y-DNA J2 anywhere close."

You probably mean that language "layer" in the Hungarian that came from steppe Iranian languages (possibly Scytian or some related), at least I learnt so in the high school. It is very unlikely that they have actual Indic origin, more like the "something close enough" category. It is possible though that the Hungarian in a few cases preserved a more ancient version than the modern Iranian languages themselves.

Hungarian linguistics place the beginning of a separate Hungarian (the split from the closest relatives) roughly around 1200 BC.

However language and genetics are tend to be two different businesses.

Thank you for the answers. However I am not satisfied (not with the answers, but the whole problem of the meaning of the admixture components).

Since you pointed out that Sardinians and Ötzi have Caucasus because of Southern and that's why they do not have West Asian, let's take these.

What is the possible source of a population that have significant Southern but do not have any West Asian? The article about the G2a variability tells maybe the Armenian Highland. But the current population of the Armenian Highland is dominated by West Asian. Let's say the West Asian dominance there is a later development. But the West Asian component is very strong in the whole Levant, even as far as Yemen or even Egypt. Of course the whole region must have changed a lot since that migration happened, but there have to be a limit of this type of explanation, because at this point we are between two radical options: 1. The ancestors of Ötzi came from Africa (totally in contradiction with the Y-DNA results)2. After this population left, there was a Huge migration in the Levant that partially replaced a significant part of the population of a wide area introduced high West Asian admixture.

What is the possible source of a population that have significant Southern but do not have any West Asian?

West Asia, like Europe, changed during prehistory. Modern Europeans aren't like ancient Europeans from the same localities of 5,000 years ago, and neither are modern West Asians like the people of 5,000 years ago.

If one had to guess what haplogroups were brought by Near Eastern farmers into Europe, they would probably guess J or R1b, but it turns out that they brought the unexpected G2a.

The most likely scenario is that the earliest farming groups that entered Europe weren't like modern-day Anatolians; the latter were probably formed by migration of highlanders who brought the J/R1b mix and the West_Asian component currently dominating there.

So, you basically had "Southern" like people being involved in the Neolithic; these guys dominate North Africa, Arabia, and the Levant. Then, after the early Neolithic (and after farmers had already crossed to Europe) you have the spread of new non-coastal people into the lowlands; these probably carried J and R1b.

'Just as 'West Asian' peaks in the Caucasus, r1b has a peak in the basque, but neither case eliminates an IE connection".

R1b as extremely common in the Basques rather eliminates it as a candidate for the spread of IE. That is if we assume Basque is not related to IE. Basque looks very likely to have been in that region some time before IE arrived.

"there is no anthropological/archaeological evidence for population replacement at that time in Europe. Even arch-supporters of the steppe IE hypothesis like JP Mallory and D. Anthony explicitly reject population replacement".

For that reason we are unlikely to find a correlation between IE and any particular haplogroup(s).

"If one had to guess what haplogroups were brought by Near Eastern farmers into Europe, they would probably guess J or R1b, but it turns out that they brought the unexpected G2a"

Dienekes: "Tripolye-Cucuteni is more likely to have been IE than the regions to the east of it."

They don't seem to fit with anything culturally Indo-european. But I guess it's possible newcomers from the steppes might have been indo-europeanized when they would have taken the region, a bit like the Normands (scandinavian not long before) imposing French in England.

"The West_Asian is not limited to Europe, but also occurs in Siberia and Central Asia"

Siberia? I don't remember seeing that (can you provide me a link, please?). If it is so, probably not much. The Yakuts possess male and female lineages largely similar to the aDNA of the ancient Altai-sayan and I only remember a north european component as west eurasian autosomal element among them. It could have been brought in Siberia mostly in the Scythian period. Anyway even if it's to be linked to early Yamna (source of Afanasevo), this component can be from population from the Caucasus/southern Russia (like the Adygei region) as there are mtDNA hgs that fit with it (U1a for instance. U3 would fit too).

You're probably thinking or mtDNA T yourself, as West_Asian marker in these populations, but in Kayzer et al, 2009, the aDNA of bronze and iron age south Siberia/Altai-sayan (that we can assume the popoulation actually find its origin in the Afanasevo culture, starting about 3500-3200 BCE), there were several T in the female lineages but only R1a1a - except for one y-DNA C - (just like nowadays, the Altaians are still about 50% R1a1a) on the Y-DNA side of these proto-europoid probably coming from not to far of the Volga. No J2a. Where did they pick so much West_Asian women up? weird. Anyway, in this specific case, this fact is unlikely to be the mark of an indo-europeanization to me (West_Asian male hgs would be more overt in the gene pool). R1a1a looks like the dominant element.

Slumbery: "You probably mean that language "layer" in the Hungarian that came from steppe Iranian languages (possibly Scytian or some related)"

No, I do mean some Indic (or Indic-like). An exemple among others (also interesting because related to pastoralism): Hungarian tehén (cow) is obviously more related to sanskrit dhenu (-> Punjabi dhen) than to Iranic (Avestan dainu).

Siberia? I don't remember seeing that (can you provide me a link, please?).

It's in the K7b spreadsheet.

The Yakuts possess male and female lineages largely similar to the aDNA of the ancient Altai-sayan and I only remember a north european component as west eurasian autosomal element among them.

The Yakut are not exactly typical Siberians, given that they live in NE Siberia and migrated from Lake Baikal which is the limit of the Caucasoid presence in Siberia. Their West Eurasian component may reflect either recent Russian admixture, or the absorption of the aboriginal mixed U+Mongoloid population of Siberia that extended up to Lake Baikal during the Neolithic. Certainly not any "Indo-Europeans".

But you can find plenty of Siberian and Central Asian populations with lots of West_Asian in the spreadsheet.

It could have been brought in Siberia mostly in the Scythian period.

Indeed it may, and we know that the Scythians were Indo-Europeans, which is not the same for any of the preceding populations.

The bottom line is that the North_European component represents the aboriginal Caucasoid substratum on a huge region from Iberia to Gotland to Siberia, and over that substratum a West_Asian component was added in the Bronze and Iron Ages.

there were several T in the female lineages but only R1a1a - except for one y-DNA C - (just like nowadays, the Altaians are still about 50% R1a1a) on the Y-DNA side of these proto-europoid probably coming from not to far of the Volga.

Where they came from is an open question, and certainly not addressed by Keyser et al.

Also, R1a1a may have been the only haplogroup detected in the samples from Siberia and the Tarim so far, but it is not the only Caucasoid haplogroup in the current populations. There is little reason to suppose that the languages spoken by R1a1a 5,000 years ago were the same as the languages of the Sakae and Tocharians spoken there 1-3 thousand years ago.

Anyway, in this specific case, this fact is unlikely to be the mark of an indo-europeanization to me (West_Asian male hgs would be more overt in the gene pool). R1a1a looks like the dominant element.

First of all, R1a1a is not European in origin. It is deeply structured, and there is no reason at present to suppose that Central Asian R1a1a is closely related to that of Europe.

Secondly, there are plenty of West Asian male hgs in both Central Asia and Siberia. Only certain Uralic and Turko-Mongolian populations in the territory of interest seem to lack them.

hmm... Highly unlikely. AFAIK they only have R1a1a and their mtDNA hgs set was diverse and quite similar to mtDNA hgs of kayzer et al 2009. So much Russian entering the Yakut Gene pool is not a reasonable assumption (especially since IIRC the Cossacks were the colonizer of Siberia in the name of Russia, so I'd expect some more specific hgs)

"or the absorption of the aboriginal mixed U+Mongoloid population of Siberia that extended up to Lake Baikal during the Neolithic. Certainly not any "Indo-Europeans"."

mtDNA U? The Yakuts possess even mtDNA J and T in the study I've seen. And I don't see what's so certain about not being IE.

"we know that the Scythians were Indo-Europeans, which is not the same for any of the preceding populations."

Yes, we actually don't know what where speaking the former steppic populations but we know the Scythians are derived from local steppic populations (AFAIK archeology sees a continuity between the Andronovo cultural horizon and the subsequent scythians). We do have tracks of proto-indo-iranian (and even a more ancient IE stage) in Uralic, so that seems to put the theory that puts it as a neighbor of Uralic, ahead of other theories (I can admit that there are still room for other theories but still...).

"Also, R1a1a may have been the only haplogroup detected in the samples from Siberia and the Tarim so far, but it is not the only Caucasoid haplogroup in the current populations. There is little reason to suppose that the languages spoken by R1a1a 5,000 years ago were the same as the languages of the Sakae and Tocharians spoken there 1-3 thousand years ago. "

More than little IMO:

In the Kurgan theory context, the fact that Afanasvo is a result of migration from the eastern part of early Yamna fits exactly with the fact that Tocharian is said to be one of the most ancient branching within IE. It's often argued that some agricultural vocabulary found in the tocharian languages goes against an origin on the pontic Steppes. That's ignoring that the ancestral cultures linked to PIE in the KUrgan theory did have a little agriculture (both srednij stog and Yamna, actually even some of the Andronvo cultures had a bit too IIRC what I've read in Kuz'mina). There is no tracks of agriculture in Afanasevo (yet) but it doesn't mean it didn' texist at all as a minor thing, like in their ancestral lands, west.

The fact is that the earliest Tarim mummies (that were found in eastern Tarim and in north-west Gansu, which BTW fits better with them arriving from the north (south Siberia and thus as an offshoot of Afanasevo) rather than directly from the west, through the desert) were likely to come from south Siberia (chunxiang Li et al 2010 about the aDNA of the Xiaohe people (all males were R1a1a, a few west Eurasian mtDNA hgs (interestingly, the mtDNA H had most of its matches in England... and as far as Iceland), and the major east Asian mtDNA hg among them was C4, an haplogroup that almost certainly came from south Siberia/near the Altai, where it's still frequent)). These population settling in these regions before 2100 BCE were already using agriculture besides pastoralism. It's so true that the Loulan beauty, a west eurasian-looking woman from ~1800 BCE found in the eastern Tarim, had a wheat basket burried with her. besides they used the same kind of cereals that we find on the chalcolithic Pontic steppes where there is a little agriculture (wheat, barley, millet...). They also had horses, sheeps and some cattle like the Afanasevo populations.

There seem to be no west Asian or south Asian loanwords in Tocharian languages (yes, they really were different languages, so it implies a rather long time to diversify locally). No (ancient) Iranic loanwords either (AFAIK the only indo-iranian words are linked to the spread of Buddhism, and thus rather recent). On the other hand, the ancestor of proto-Tocharian was quite possibly in close geographically proximity of Uralic (as I mentionned in the thread "Proto-Indo-European and North Caucasian") and there are also tracks of what could be linked to some proto-altaic languages - IIRC things such as proto-Turkic and proto-Tungusic are mentionned - (in "Turkic and Chinese loan words in Tocharian" by A. Lubotsky and S. Starostin).

Where were hiding the proto-Tocharians before arriving to the Tarim? In central Asia? And not receiving any Iranic input? If it's older than the Iranic presence then we would expect the oldest mummies to have also other male hgs beside R1a1a (because that Indo-iranian presence on the steppes would likely place us not too far from the time of the earliest mummies)? In west Asia? And not receiving any input from the local powerful influent populations of these regions? In south Asia? Same remark. Why not "hiding" in south Siberia? these populations would have had to rely more on agriculture as they went souther and they had to survive in a new rougher environment, that's all.

But at this point we can't really prove it for sure, so let's just put that aside.

"First of all, R1a1a is not European in origin. It is deeply structured, and there is no reason at present to suppose that Central Asian R1a1a is closely related to that of Europe."

Yeah, except that the ancient south Siberian R1a1a samples (kayzer et al 2009) were both (its especially true for the most ancient individuals) morphologically proto-europoid (at the very least for the most part) like the population at the Volga and in the Pontic steppes, and that they possessed female haplogroups that are absolutely similar to European hgs, and of course carrier of a strong north european ausosomal component (as it is found everywhere in these regions).

"Secondly, there are plenty of West Asian male hgs in both Central Asia and Siberia. "

hmm... Highly unlikely. AFAIK they only have R1a1a and their mtDNA hgs set was diverse and quite similar to mtDNA hgs of kayzer et al 2009. So much Russian entering the Yakut Gene pool is not a reasonable assumption (especially since IIRC the Cossacks were the colonizer of Siberia in the name of Russia, so I'd expect some more specific hgs)

You are wrong.

"Moreover, the Yakuts are unique among Siberian populations in having a high number of haplotypes shared exclusively with Europeans, suggesting, contrary to the historical record, that occasionally Yakut men took Russian women as wives."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12567375

but we know the Scythians are derived from local steppic populations (AFAIK archeology sees a continuity between the Andronovo cultural horizon and the subsequent scythians).

No, we don't. In case you've missed it, there is clear evidence for a change in mtDNA gene pool between the Bronze and Iron Ages:

It's often argued that some agricultural vocabulary found in the tocharian languages goes against an origin on the pontic Steppes. That's ignoring that the ancestral cultures linked to PIE in the KUrgan theory did have a little agriculture (both srednij stog and Yamna, actually even some of the Andronvo cultures had a bit too IIRC what I've read in Kuz'mina).

No, they did not, even Mallory is clear that the absence of grains in the steppe spells trouble for the idea that Tocharians came from the steppe:

These population settling in these regions before 2100 BCE were already using agriculture besides pastoralism. It's so true that the Loulan beauty, a west eurasian-looking woman from ~1800 BCE found in the eastern Tarim, had a wheat basket burried with her. besides they used the same kind of cereals that we find on the chalcolithic Pontic steppes where there is a little agriculture (wheat, barley, millet...). They also had horses, sheeps and some cattle like the Afanasevo populations.

Don't confuse the people of the Tarim basin with the people of the steppes who DID NOT have grains at this time.

Yeah, except that the ancient south Siberian R1a1a samples (kayzer et al 2009) were both (its especially true for the most ancient individuals) morphologically proto-europoid (at the very least for the most part) like the population at the Volga and in the Pontic steppes, and that they possessed female haplogroups that are absolutely similar to European hgs, and of course carrier of a strong north european ausosomal component (as it is found everywhere in these regions).

I will also add that there is no mystery in Tocharian having Uralic loanwords, since there is clear evidence for a very mixed Caucasoid-Mongoloid early population the Tarim (during the time of the so-called "European-looking" mummies), and when Indo-European groups arrived there they may very well have picked up some of the genes and vocabulary of this mixed population.

"Moreover, the Yakuts are unique among Siberian populations in having a high number of haplotypes shared exclusively with Europeans, suggesting, contrary to the historical record, that occasionally Yakut men took Russian women as wives"

"contrary to historical record" . The scientists were left (then) with a mystery and had to guess where these hgs came from. Now we know better. Ancient chalcolithic west Eurasian populations is the key. So many _different_ west eurasian female haplogroups among the Yakuts? What's with this? It doesn't work at all. Did all these "Russian" women also married with the Tungusic Udege of _south-eastern_ Siberia (having some H, H5, H11a, T2 and U2e and no west eurasian male lineages)? It's not credible to my ear.

"but we know the Scythians are derived from local steppic populations (AFAIK archeology sees a continuity between the Andronovo cultural horizon and the subsequent scythians). No, we don't. In case you've missed it, there is clear evidence for a change in mtDNA gene pool between the Bronze and Iron Ages"

Archeologically-speaking the Scythians seem mostly derived from the earlier population, that's what I've read anyway (Maybe other books would disagree, I didn't read everything on the subject, so...), so I'd say they were at least the dominant element. And I don't think the exact genetic history of that region is completely clear yet.

"No, they did not, even Mallory is clear that the absence of grains in the steppe spells trouble for the idea that Tocharians came from the steppe"

The fact that the earliest Tarim mummies had it and that their ancestors likely came from the east of the Pontic steppes _also had it_ (see below about Mallory), and that they show convincing signs of coming from south Siberia is really good enough for me to keep an open mind about it all.

"It is also not clear that Afanasevo is derived from Yamna groups"

Oh yes, it is. Everything yells it: from the sepultures, the cultual objects, the potteries, the copper metallurgy (and also silver metallurgy, that was rare in that time but found on the Pontic steppes IIRC), pastoralism, etc... Their morphology also is the same that the north and east Yamna population group.

"Don't confuse the people of the Tarim basin with the people of the steppes who DID NOT have grains at this time."

The steppes? The ancestral Kurgan cultures (*) had some even if it was a minor thing. So it in the early Yamna-derived population reaching the Altai during Chalcolithic.

(*) Mallory states it in one of his book ("In search of the Indo-europeans") that sites of Srednij stog had agriculture and the cereals I mentionned (+ peas). Yamna also had sites with some agriculture but I don't know the details.

(*) Mallory states it in one of his book ("In search of the Indo-europeans") that sites of Srednij stog had agriculture and the cereals I mentionned (+ peas). Yamna also had sites with some agriculture but I don't know the details.

I already sent you the link to Mallory's talk, so go ahead and listen to it. This ain't the 1980s.

Your speculations about the Yakut are noted, but Yakut are irrelevant, since they have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans.

I also note that you completely ignore the presence of the West_Asian component in Siberia and Central Asia and/or the fact that the North_European substratum precedes any possible IE expansions since it is likely found from Iberia to Lake Baikal in clearly pre-PIE contexts.

All the remaining parts of your comment about what you "think" or what "seems to you" are devoid of facts or arguments and hence ignored.

It is clear that the Caucasoid component in both the Tarim basin and Central Asia/Siberia is partially to predominantly of West Asian origin. It is only among some Altaic/Uralic populations with no known IE connections that the West_Asian component is weaker, although we must really go to places like the arctic coast or northeastern Siberia or China to lose it altogeher

Mongols from Outer Mongolia have about equal proportions of Atlantic_Baltic and West_Asian. In short, there is no evidence in modern populations that are likely to have absorbed IE nomads for North_European without also West_Asian. This is also what we see with uniparental markers, where the most ancient U substratum has been invaded by bearers of southern Caucasoid lineages.

http://dienekes.ifreepages.com/blog/archives/000206.html

"The applied approach permitted identification of 60% of mtDNA types the majority of which had southern Caucasoid origin. Less than 10% of mtDNA types were of eastern European origin."

Much more can be said, but I think it would be wasted in this particular discussion.

"I already sent you the link to Mallory's talk, so go ahead and listen to it. This ain't the 1980s."

I've already read on the subject in one of his book (did the archeologists unfind what they had found? If it's a mistake by Mallory in the book that's a big blunder, especially since my book was already a "revised" (i don't know the english word) edition (2002, I think). But Ok, I'll watch it (later). Thanks for the link.

"I also note that you completely ignore the presence of the West_Asian component in Siberia and Central Asia and/or the fact that the North_European substratum precedes any possible IE expansions since it is likely found from Iberia to Lake Baikal in clearly pre-PIE contexts."

I don't think I ignored it at all. Unless I missed something important (it's possible), I think I addressed everything that needed to be.

"It is clear that the Caucasoid component in both the Tarim basin and Central Asia/Siberia is partially to predominantly of West Asian origin"

The question is when and who brought it there. I gave a few reason why I'm skeptical about this west Asian population popping out of nowhere bringing this particular language. But yes, it's still open, of course.

"Mongols from Outer Mongolia have about equal proportions of Atlantic_Baltic and West_Asian"

I know the archeology of inner Mongolia rather points to a Saka population settling IIRC (In other words, several kind of different populations from the west went east), I don't know what was the Saka impact in outer Mongolia. Personally I always thought that the Sakas had some west asian, east Asian and a bit of south Asian genes among them (in different proportions depending of their people/tribe), it's visible in their morphology (For instance, a famous scythian ruler in a kurgan is described as looking middle-east-like) - unlike the Afanasevo population, that might have been admixed but apparently only slightly).

"The applied approach permitted identification of 60% of mtDNA types the majority of which had southern Caucasoid origin. Less than 10% of mtDNA types were of eastern European origin."

This thing is from 2002, it looks like he identified J and T as being for sure a _direct_ near east/middle east neolithic marker (and beside some could be a later addition (andronovo or scythian)). I still consider not totally sure the general historical panorama of haplogroups, sorry. There are still a lot of blind spots in our current picture of it.

The fact is that the Afanasevo population seems dominated by the north european populations (morphology and component). In this example (Bouakaze et al. 2008 / IIRC, also some individuals of Kayzer et al 2009), only a few individuals (from a time period spanning over 2000 years) shifting towards Africans might clearly represent some Caucasus or west Asian genetic input.

"a famous scythian ruler in a kurgan is described as looking middle-east-like"

I forgot to mention the kurgan was in south Siberia, hence the particular importance in the discussion.

"That's funny, you were convinced that "they possessed female haplogroups that are absolutely similar to European hgs" a moment ago"

Well... not only the antique south Siberian mtDNA hg set had the same kind of female haplogroups found in Europe nowadays, but they had almost all their matches in Europe, according to Kayzer et al, 2009 (difficult to make mistakes, they provided a map with the exact and close matches for both male and female haplogroups, geographically), so it's difficult to not think about a link, especially in south Siberia, in such an archeological context.

Dienekes in update III: "It is often forgotten that before the spread of Islam, and quite time thereafter, Inner Asia was teeming with Zoroastrians and Nestorian Christians. It seems quite likely that these outliers represent a legacy of these communities."

Maybe this applied also for Q1B-M378?Because it is found among Azeris, Armenians (in other studies), Assyrians, jews and also some persians with a 5% among Khorasan persians who are on the border of central Asia.

I have question about your dendrogram of Y-haplogroup frequencies and the hclust package of R , is it the mixture of R1a-R1b in middle East and Iran ? Or it explain the relationship between Iranian R1a-R1b with all nation ?

This is not in agreement to SNP study, which showed considerable overlap between the majority of Iranian groups and Near easterners (especially Turks). This study is good reflection of the weakness of sex linked studies - and how the data is often subject to flawed interpretations. Their utility is in tracing population movements, and not for grouping populations. One thing that sticks out in this study, is the general proximity of Iranian groups to the Indo/Paki cluster. All studies which I have seen so far, reveal huge gaps between the large majority of Iranian samples (all but perhaps Balochi's and parts of S.E Iran), and Indians. In most studies, the distance between most Iranians and the Dravidoid based populations is several times the distance between Iranians and Near Easterners (or Arabs). But by restricting raw data to single markers (individual y haplogroups), there are severe limitations which are imposed.

Here is the result of the study using 240K SNP, and published in PLOS Genetics (http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6843/irarm.jpg)

Of course, this study also revealed scatter among the samples, but there was a lot more overlap with the turkish samples.

We offer Loan Amount of: 5k-$5m I want to fully assure you that you will get the funds if only you are very serious and trustworthy because i like serious and God fearing people.If interested contact us fasterloanservice@gmail.com

"The "age estimates" are the result of using the inappropriate "evolutionary mutation rate", and become even older because of the inclusion of the DYS388 marker that is very stable in many haplogroups but very mutable within haplogroup J. On the left you can see frequency, Y-STR variance, and haplotype network structures for various J-related groups."

I've been trying to figure that out for WEEKS. According to their spreadsheet some of the J2a's showed up on Crete 4,000 years before we know the island was settled.

Old Blog Archive

Dienekes' Anthropology blog is dedicated to human population genetics, physical anthropology, archaeology, and history.

You are free to reuse any of the materials of this blog for non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link to either the individual blog entry or to Dienekes Anthropology Blog.

Feel free to send e-mail to Dienekes Pontikos, or follow @dienekesp on Twitter.